Allowed

Muhammed Siyad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Mar 2023Crl.MC/955/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court, invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., examined a petition to quash criminal proceedings. Observing that the dispute was settled and verified by the defacto complainant, the court held that no public interest was involved. Consequently, the criminal proceedings against the accused were quashed as an exercise of futility would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings in C.C. No.1061/2020 against the petitioners on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vatakara, are quashed.

Muhammed Siyad Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

HIN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 955 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.201/2020 OF Vadakara Police Station, Kozhikode

¶6

CC 1061/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 :

¶7

1 MUHAMMED SIYAD, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KAREEM, VADAKEANACHAL HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR P.O, PIN – 673 015

¶8

2 MUHAMMED SHANU,

¶9

AGED 24 YEARS, S/O ABDU RAHIMAN, VADAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR P.O, PIN – 673 015

¶10

3 MUHAMMED, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA, THAZHATHEMENI HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR P.O, PIN – 673 541

¶11

BY ADV K.REEHA KHADER

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ STATE/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031

¶14

2 ABBAS P.V., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O ABDU P.V, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, MANDARATHUR P.O., PUTHUPPANAM, MANIYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 105

¶15

BY SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

BY ADV.ANJALY JIMMICHAN

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CRL.MC NO. 955 OF 2023

¶19

¶20

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.955 of 2023

¶22

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2023

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.

¶25

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No.1061/2020 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vatakara, arising out of Crime No.201/2020 of Vatakara Police Station, Kozhikode, registered for the offences under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

¶28

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This

¶29

¶30

CRL.MC NO. 955 OF 2023

¶31

view was reiterated in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

¶32

I have perused Annexure A3 affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

¶33

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.1061/2020 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vatakara are quashed.

¶34

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶35

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶36

RKM

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 955 OF 2023

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 955/2023

¶40

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶41

Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 201/2020 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT VATAKARA KOZHIKODE AS CC NO. 1061/2020 Annexure A2 A CERTIFIED OF MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME 201/2020 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

Muhammed Siyad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Siyad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marakkar Vs Ummerkutty

Geethu Anilkumar, Vs State of Kerala

Geethu Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Ummer.K.M. Vs State of Kerala

Haroon Dilshad Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala